6 ms·
Day Against DRM
- skerrit_bwoy 15y agolol irrelevant
- skerrit_bwoy 15y agohahaha "anonymous downvotes without riposte" = "proof of irrelevancy" more and more the fsf crew looks like autistic kids arguing over who would win a fight: green lantern or captain america
- octopus 15y ago@skerrit_bwoy If you want to really participate in a discussion on HN you should stop trolling and present your opinion.
- skerrit_bwoy 15y agoThat's not a troll, I actually work in infotech and come from startuplandia. That's my god's honest opinion. Of course I know expressing it is going to be kicking a hornet's nest around here, but I could care less about my karma, I write for whatever small percentage of kids reading this stuff aren't yet irrevocably doomed to a life of aspergers, celibacy, and irrelevancy.
- beedogs 15y agoActually, you seem to exist solely to troll. Guessing you won't be around for very long.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mkr-hn 15y agoThis press release sounds like a declaration of war on content creators. You won't kill DRM by tut-tutting it. You kill DRM by changing the minds of content creators who use it. You won't do that by waging a war on them. What does one do to participate in this anyway? The press release wasn't clear.
- AndrewDucker 15y agoThey link to http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ which seems to be main organising point.
- mkr-hn 15y agoSeems very misguided. It takes aim at DRM, not why DRM exists. People don't care about DRM. Think about how many people buy the products this site calls defective. But people do care that the people who create think they need DRM. A public awareness campaign focused on getting people to convince creators that DRM is bad would be more effective.
- bmelton 15y agoWhile I don't disagree with the point, we are actually not declaring war on content creators, but on content rights-holders. I'm just guessing, but I would suppose that the majority of cases in which DRM was applied to a product was done so by a middle-man, e.g., Sony Records, not Lady Gaga. Showing more of my ignorance on the subject, does anyone know if the content-producers are even consulted on whether or not their copyrighted works get DRM or not?
- mkr-hn 15y ago"We launched your career, handle all the hard work, and give you the freedom to create. We need DRM to keep doing this." The rights holders have a very compelling argument from the perspective of a creator. How do you convince someone DRM is bad when the person showering them in money and fame is telling them it's good?
- bad_user 15y agoBy educating them.
- elehack 15y agoYou go over to O'Reilly and buy a DRM-free e-book. Now, the FSF likely won't suggest that because they don't like mentioning the existence of “non-free” documentation, but IMO one of the best ways to protest DRM is by saying, with our pocketbooks, that we want e-books and are willing to pay good money for them but find DRM unacceptable. If Tor had gotten their DRM-free book thing in order by now, rather than waiting until July or so, I'd probably also be buying a Tor e-book today.
- driverdan 15y agoFrom 2010. Don't people look at dates before posting?
- mkr-hn 15y agoDon't Repeat Yourself, in classic UNIX fashion. They're reusing the same blog post for each year.
- warp 15y agoI don't see this linked in the news/event boxes on fsf.org, I think the person who posted this to HN used an old link -- not the FSF.
- mike-cardwell 15y agoI just went to the front page of fsf.org, search for "day against drm" and clicked the link. It took me here: https://www.fsf.org/events/international-day-against-drm https://www.fsf.org/events/international-day-against-drm
- eykanal 15y agoThe correct link is: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/ http://www.defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/
- aspir 15y agoI would take posts like this from the FSF more seriously if they proposed or endorsed a solution, rather than simply proposing a protest. FSF may claim to be about "Free as in Speech, rather than Free as in Beer," but DRM straddles both of these points. Yes, we're restricted in the products that can utilize DRM files, but DRM also exists to protect ownership rights. Its a complex system, and one that can't simply be "abolished" without some suitable alternative to protects both interests. There are lots of theories and examples of alternatives to DRM that protect the rights of both the creator and end user. I'm just disappointed that the FSF didn't propose one of these, or their own, as a viable solution. It's easy to point fingers, it's tough to propose meaningful solutions.
- rrreese 15y agoVery true, especially as the FSF has been so instrumental in creating and encouraging the creation of free software. While the FSF have "been against" non free software they have at least helped provide the alternative. In the case of DRM, not so much.
- mkr-hn 15y agoGPL and other licenses are the alternative. The only functional difference between a license and DRM is that enforcement is in the hands of the rights holders until the DRM is broken. GPL is hoping no one steals it. DRM is trying to keep people from stealing it until you make enough to cover expenses and some profit. Law is the fallback for both.
- tsewlliw 15y agoLike what meaningful solution? Pre-digital DRM was essentially the difficulty of copying, and that is no longer "difficult", and you can't undo that because DRM on media people care about will be broken.
- samdk 15y ago[DRM] can't simply be "abolished" without some suitable alternative to protects both interests. It can be and in the music industry largely has been. iTunes has no DRM. Amazon's mp3 store has no DRM. Bandcamp has no DRM. The solution is getting rid of DRM. DRM does not prevent people intent on pirating their media from doing whatever they want. It hurts legitimate users. The existence of DRM has nothing to do with preserving the freedom of content creators. Your presentation of it as something that does is naive. It exists to protect the interests and power of media publishers. The publishers--not the creators--are the ones making the choices about DRM. Its use is an attempt to prop up outdated business models, because that's easier--and, in the short term, safer--than change.
- MaxGabriel 15y agoRecently I've been researching autonomous cars, and I haven't explored this idea much, but could DRM have a role in preventing users from modifying the software that drives their car, or other life-and-death scenarios? Like I said, it's just an inkling at this point, any thoughts?
- Rudism 15y agoI think in issues of public safety like that, it would be more a matter of law and not digital rights. Tinting your windows too dark, cutting a brake line, or adding distracting lights to the exterior are all ways to modify your car that are illegal (where I live, at least), so there's really no need to have other protective measures against that built into the car. I'd suspect driving software modifications would be treated similarly, with DRM or some similar system mainly being used to detect the illegal modifications as opposed to trying too hard to prevent them.
- lloeki 15y agoPeople are somehow prevented by law to modify their car from hardware to software already. In most countries, changing your intake or doing an ECU remap is less dramatic than bolting on a turbo on a NA car but it is nonetheless exactly the same: your car is no longer complying to characteristics from when it was homologated. Therefore if you do so you can basically only drive it in your backyard and not on public roads, unless you take on you (and your wallet and patience) to have those modifications homologated as a special case.